Games / Movies / Music / Sports / Random Posts / Politics
View Today's Active Threads / View New Posts / Mark All Boards Read / Chit Chat Board
To have your access for this board blocked, please PM TJ.
|Register||FAQ||Members List||Photo Galleries||News Blog||Calendar||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
|New on DVD/Blu-ray / Headlines|
Welcome to the Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, search, view attachments, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
||Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|06-30-2006, 04:25 PM||#1|
"Bob hates you."
Join Date: Nov 30, 2004
Democrats Equate Terrorists and You; Astounding Nancy Pelosi statement...
Democrats Equate Terrorists and You
June 29, 2006
RUSH: All right, Miss America, Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader in the House of Representatives has issued a statement on the Supreme Court, Guantanamo military commissions decision today, and I read from the statement now. I've not seen it, I don't know what this is going to say. I just literally ripped it off the printer and I don't want you to tell me, Snerdley, I want to read this and learn it with the audience as one. "House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following the US Supreme Court decision that trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates US law and the Geneva Conventions."
Quote: "Today the Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph of the rule of law. The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties and today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush administration's detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was the founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."
The woman is deranged.
Do you realize she has just equated our enemy with you, the United States citizens? This is unbelievable. "All are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph of rule of law." All are entitled? You know, actually, bring it on. Ted Kennedy just had a statement. I didn't read it. It was on television, but you knew we had a caller who called this today, the Democrats are going to step in it, they're going to paint a big bull's-eye on themselves. They're going to tell the American people, "This is great. This is good. Bush overstepped! The rule of law is what counts here, and these terrorists need to be given the full force and protection of the US Constitution."
If bin Laden is sick in the cave wherever he is, this is some of the best medicine he could get, seeing his allies in the United States Congress and the Senate on the Democratic side lining up against his enemy, lining up with him. This is absolutely stupid. This is just stupid. "Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law." Can you imagine FDR being faced with this or Abraham Lincoln? Baby. Okay. You know, Koko, I got an idea for you for the website. I want you to grab the 19 terrorists that flew the four airplanes on 9/11, and I want to you put their pictures up there, starting with Mohammed Atta and all these others, and then underneath those pictures I want that statement from Nancy Pelosi.
"Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law." Put Zarqawi's picture up there with them. Especially the first paragraph of her statement. I want this as big as you can make it. The 19 terrorists and these guys at Club Gitmo and all over are from the same family, and here is the Democrat minority leader in the House of Representatives standing up for them and their rights against the United States, her own government. Wow, this is... I mean, look, there's a part of me that loves this because these people are typecasting themselves.
They are identifying themselves. In a political sense, folks, this is fabulous, but there's much more than politics here. There is an actual war on terror; US national security is at stake here, preventing other terrorist attacks, like are happening all over the world, by the way, suicide bombers, homicide bombers, whatever you want to call them, these things are happening all over the world. We are not immune to this anymore, and these people like Nancy Pelosi want to... You know, this is Bill Clinton's war. This is how he was fighting it, and look where it got us. They call this George Bush's war on terrorism. This is Bill Clinton's war that Bush is having to fight because Clinton didn't take it on, and we're trying to clean up a bunch of messes after the passage of a bunch of years where nothing was done. Rule of law? For crying out loud, the rule of law? I mentioned that Andy McCarthy had a piece at National Review Online, and he wrote this piece before the decision of the Supreme Court came out today, and this is what he said. "Make no mistake: if this happens, the Supreme Court will have dictated that we now have a treaty with al Qaeda — which no President, no Senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance." That's a pretty good way of putting this.
The Supreme Court's just conferred the rights under the Geneva Convention to people that are not a party to it. They don't qualify, and the Supreme Court has basically just made a treaty with Al-Qaeda, the president didn't do it, the Senate didn't do it, and the American people certainly wouldn't vote for it, and yet the Supreme Court did it. This is what is meant by runaway courts, out of control courts. I gotta read to you what Mark Levin wrote on his blog, he's got a blog at National Review Online, about three days ago. He said, "I am getting a bad feeling about the outcome of the Hamdan decision relating to military commissions, which is about to be handed down by the Supreme Court. I hope I am wrong, but I fear since its 2004 Rasul and Hamdi decisions - granting unlawful enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay the right to file habeas corpus petitions in civilian courts - the justices no longer feel limited by the Constitution or precedent and will intervene further in the executive's war-related policies. If so, it was predictable." And it has been predictable, and it's exactly what's happened. I don't care who it is, the commander-in-chief, the Supreme Court has just usurped commander-in-chief authority. Quick call before we go to the break, this is Steve in Dayton, Ohio. Hi, Steve, nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, a pleasure to speak with you.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: I gotta tell you, after the last two stories I almost had to hang up so I could go vomit, but I decided to tough it out. Had a couple comments about -- primarily want to talk to you first about the Haditha thing even though it wasn't what I mentioned to the call screener. Something that none of the talking heads have mentioned yet is one possibility I think is a very realistic possibility. Isn't it possible that those people that were supposedly murdered by our soldiers were actually killed by the enemy and made to look like our soldiers did it?
RUSH: Of course, anything is possible. That's why the investigation is ongoing.
CALLER: Right. And the second point was about the court ruling and Gitmo. Where are all the people who are always talking about the level playing field and what happens to our soldiers that were beheaded and tortured and left alongside the road?
RUSH: I'll tell you where they are, and I'm getting blue in the face saying this. Here is exactly where they are. They won't say it publicly but they're not outraged by it because we deserve it, we're the evil United States of America. We started this war. We caused all this to happen. We invaded their territory. They didn't do anything to us, we invaded their territory. We have an unfair advantage. We're the lone superpower of the world. It's "George Bush's war." I can guarantee you none of what is be... The New York Times would not leak one story were Bill Clinton still in the White House. There would be no effort underway here whatsoever to undermine Bill Clinton's authority to wage war under the provisions in the Constitution granted the commander-in-chief, none of this would be happening. This is all... Let me tell you something. The best way to say this: As far as the American left is concerned, the war is in this country and the enemy is us conservatives and George W. Bush.
RUSH: I've got a great quote here, an idea from a -- I don't know who sent it, it's an e-mail, no signature. New slogan for the Democrats: "Don't worry. If you attack Americans, we'll defend your right to do it. Signed, the Democrat Party, United States of America." If you attack America or Americans, fear not, we Democrats will defend your right to do it. Columbus, Georgia, Robert, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
CALLER: I think you need to put a picture of Osama bin Laden on the web site above Nancy Pelosi's quote so we know exactly who she's talking about.
RUSH: Yeah, we can add bin Laden to it. It'd be a good idea.
CALLER: Could I ask you for a prediction?
CALLER: How many Academy Award nominations do you expect Al Gore's film to get next year?
RUSH: Let's see. How many Academy Award nominations. Well, it's actually the documentary class. I don't know -- I'll guess it'll get four. Writing, star, cinematography, editing. It'll get a lot of nominations, no question about that. Ted, Jennison, Michigan. You're next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hi.
CALLER: Rush, God bless you and good afternoon.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Hey, I have a concern over the arrogance and the audacity of the United States to believe that these people that are being detained at Gitmo are their sole trophy. These people were captured as a result of coalition forces on a coalition operation. Why doesn't the coalition decide what happens to these people than just the United States?
RUSH: You know, it doesn't matter. I understand your point. It shouldn't matter whether the coalition captured them or the United States did, the Supreme Court does not have any commander-in-chief authority under the Constitution. These prisoners do not have, no way, shape, manner, or form, protection under the Geneva Convention. However, it has just been granted by the world's foremost and last and final authority, the United States Supreme Court. So wouldn't matter if coalition forces were involved in this, the Supreme Court's just said, screw it. The president can't do this. We didn't hear Tony Blair saying he wanted to do it, too, although he probably did.
Your question illustrates the fallacy here. I like Andy McCarthy's point. The US Supreme Court has effectively just made, signed, and ratified a treaty with Al-Qaeda, and they're not allowed to do that, either. The president negotiates treaties, when it comes to treaties, the Senate ratifies them. Well, the Senate hasn't ratified this. Now, a number of Democrats in the Senate that obviously would if they had the majority, but still, there's so much that's extra-constitutional here, it's stunning, folks. I keep saying though, there's good in everything. A lot of people are, once again, telling us exactly who they are. This Pelosi quote, her statement, folks, I can't believe that the Democrats let this go out. They cannot be this blind. They just can't.
Well, maybe they are, blind with rage and hatred. Maybe she doesn't have to run it by anybody. There has to be somebody on her staff saying, "Wait a second." You have to understand the Democrats are looking at this purely from a political standpoint. They're not looking at this from the war on terror and victory and all that. They're looking at it politically. She thinks that statement is going to help her. That statement is written for these kooks and the fringe out there in the liberal blogosphere that now make up the base. Aside from that, if she thinks that the Democrats think that that's magnetic, that it's going to attract supporters, rule of law for enemy combatants, in a war? I am speechless about this. That statement of hers is, make no mistake, who she is. That's the silver lining in the cloud. But I just cannot believe that we actually have people in this country today that are this warped. Yes, I do believe it, I guess I believed it for a long time. Dan in Huntsville, Alabama, welcome to the program. Nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, giga dittos.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: Long-time listener, first-time caller.
RUSH: Great to have you with us.
CALLER: Hey, I wanted to weigh in on two things. The first thing is the desperation on the part of the Democratic Party to align their cut-and-run mandate with the option that General Casey is briefing the president on. There is a clear-cut difference between an option and a mandate. The second thing I wanted to talk to you about was, I'm lockstep with you on this flag burning amendment, but I thought you missed one thing.
RUSH: What's that?
CALLER: That this vote was one short of passing.
RUSH: That's right.
CALLER: Three of our own voted against it.
RUSH: That's right.
CALLER: And that to me is a travesty, and to me it gives the political left a victory on this issue.
RUSH: Well, one of the three was Mitch McConnell.
RUSH: Surprising vote, and -- you know, I'm getting my share of heat on this. I'm getting learned conservative types on my side sending me notes, "I really respect your mind, you were brilliant on the Dubai Ports deal, but you're just falling in with the wrong crowd on this flag burning business." I've gotten this ever since the issue first came up back in 1989. Noted conservative scholars thought that I was sounding like an average back ally conservative, unsophisticated, pandering to the base and so forth, which is why I spent so much time yesterday saying this is about, again, the Constitution.
This was an attempt to amend the Constitution legally whereas the Supreme Court just ruled by fiat back in 1989. I guess the scholars, or the elites missed that aspect or weren't worried about it. Mike, got the flag burning commercial out there? We got a new client here. Demco is the name of the company. Do you have the flag burning commercial handy? Yeah, we're going to get this for you, folks, since the flag burning thing has been brought up, new advertiser. By the way, I predicted this. The one area we'd have entrepreneurs in the Democratic Party is if you could legally burn the flag and somebody's already sprung into action out there.
(Playing of DEMCO flag burning spoof.)
We have a half hour remaining on this program, ladies and gentlemen, and I can't let the program end today without letting you hear some audio sound bites from the future hope of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama, who was on Good Morning America today. You remember Fuzzy Zoeller made a joke after the Masters about Tiger Woods, and it got him in a lot of trouble? Nearly ruined his career. I wonder if Obama's career will tank because of his remark that nothing's more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith, a politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps off-rhythm to the gospel choir. White men have no rhythm, essentially, is what Barack Obama is saying. What do you bet that there's no similar treatment whatsoever?
Read the Background Material...
(Nancy Pelosi Statement Hailing the Supreme Court Win for Terrorists)
(Boston Globe: Kerry's proposal wins support of only 12 Democrats)
(al-AP: Some Sunni insurgent groups offer to halt attacks)
(Andy McCarthy: Hamdan Pre-Mortem)
(National Review Blog: Mark Levin)
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|